Skip to main content

Paul Bearer Coverage, Unveiling D-Lo, WWE Studios Changes, Main Event Highlights Pet Peeve

The following is today's edition of Ask WNW. Ask WNW is the most popular feature on the website where Richard Gray answers four questions daily, Monday through Friday. To submit your question for the next installment of Ask WNW, click here.

What do you think of the mainstream press regarding the death of Paul Bearer? From trending, to TMZ to main news reports; do you think FINALLY the USA media is taking wrestling as a serious form of entertainment?

I don't think we're seeing a change in the perception of pro wrestling in the mainstream media. What we saw with the death of Paul Bearer (and subsequent coverage) was a character people cared about and when enough people care, the media gives it attention. The Associated Press picked up on Bearer's passing and they were responsible for mainstream media outlets carrying the story. Earlier Friday morning I posted an article on how I feel WWE should honor the legendary manager on next week's WWE Raw here on

I was disappointed to learn that D-Lo Brown was in Aces and Eights? Based on Kurt Angle's reaction, I was hoping for a bigger name. Your thoughts?

D-Lo Brown being revealed as the VP of Aces and Eights isn't surprising although TNA did a good job of making people wonder "who is it." TNA has strung out the "revealing" of the Aces and Eights members longer than I thought they could but have done a good job at making viewers care about the gimmick. D-Lo, a TNA producer, has worked with the faction almost since its inception. As for the segment itself, kudos to Kurt Angle and for the writing team for the way it was hyped.

If the WWE wants their WWE Studios films to succeed why don't they put more popular stars in them? Ken Kennedy, Ted DiBiase, The Miz and Wade Barrett don't draw money. Some of the Cena movies were good though.

The WWE Studios strategy has changed. WWE Films was started as a division of WWE that would try and take a contracted worker, give them a starring role in a film, release it in theaters with a distributor and profit from DVD rentals and sales. It didn't work out as the majority of the films failed at the box office but there was some hope with DVD rentals and sales. "Condemned" starring Steve Austin in 2007 bombed in the box office but did well on DVD. The company then shifted to a straight-to-DVD model. When that ended up killing quarterly earnings and disgruntling investors, they decided to pivot again with the new strategy that will receive its first test this weekend. The new strategy is to partner with independent studios with films that boast large budgets with top name actors. As part of the strategy, a contracted worker gets a supporting role in the film and the company hopes to profit on down the line. The film this weekend is "Dead Man Down" and we have more details at this link.

When WWE puts a titleholder in a match on television only to put them under I feel it does nothing but hurt the prestige and clout of the title. The latest example is Ryback over United States Champion Antonio Cesaro on Raw. What are your thoughts on non-title matches where the champion goes under?

The latest example is actually this week's episode of WWE Main Event. Both the Intercontinental Champion (Wade Barrett to Randy Orton) and the United States Champion (Antonio Cesaro to Sin Cara) went under clean in non-title bouts. This is a huge pet peeve of mine and I'm completely against putting a titleholder under clean in a non-title bout. I understand why it's done, to make the challenger look better, but it makes the titles useless.

Remember questions with proper grammar and spelling stand the best chance of getting answered. The next installment of Ask WNW is scheduled to run on Monday, March 11, 2013.

Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.

Submit questions to:!

Related Articles